Old Policy, New Excuses

George Bush never did conquer the "vision thing." So America was graceful when, during the presidential campaign, Bill Clinton articulated a coherent and admirable vision of the nation's mission abroad.

Emanating vigor, promise, and--of course--Hope, Candidate Clinton spoke stirringly of a foreign policy structured around humanitarian ideals. But for Haiti, President Clinton's bold new foreign policy is little more than old policy with new excuses.

During the campaign, Clinton said he was "appalled" by the Bush Administration's policy of returning Haitian refugees before hearing their pleas for asylum. He called the policy cruel and immoral, and promised to reverse it.

Believing that Clinton's words were more than politically expedient campaign rhetoric, thousands of Haitians built boats and waited eagerly on Haiti's shores for Inauguration Day. In pre-inaugural interviews, many Haitians exalted Clinton's benevolence and ranked him just below God in their esteem.

But on the eve of the inauguration, Clinton shattered the hopes he had so carefully (and so intentionally) cultivated, declaring that the Bush policy would continue temporarily, and sending a flotilla of Coast Guard and Navy ships to enforce it. Since then, the ships have maintained what Amnesty International representatives call a Caribbean Curtain, "effectively transforming Haiti into an island prison."

As a candidate, Clinton had praised a federal appeals court decision last summer which ruled that the Bush policy was illegal. But last week, citing presidential emergency powers, his administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.

Clinton's promises and expressions of horror during the campaign were probably not merely cynical political ploys calculated to win votes. Presumably, he genuinely opposed the Bush policy and still does. So what explains the decision to continue it?

First, Clinton worried that television footage of drowning Haitians would stain the evening news images of his carefully orchestrated inauguration. Having demonstrated his mastery at mass-media manipulation during the campaign. Clinton wasn't about to let something as small as a campaign promise spoil his big day.

Second, the president sincerely wanted to avert a "humanitarian tragedy at sea." Though he hadn't thought of it when he was on the campaign trail, Clinton suddenly realized that thousands of Haitians could die if they attempted the treacherous sea passage in their shabbily constructed boats.

Clinton's concern is laudable. But by enforcing the blockade of the island and failing to effectively improve the Haitian political climate, the president consigns suffering Haitians to a precarious and dangerous existence and jeopardizes the very lives he hopes to save.

Though Clinton insists that there is a "big difference" between his program and Bush's, the distinction is a matter of purpose, not policy. Clinton cloaks his decisions in humanitarian rhetoric, while Bush simply tried to pretend that the fleeing Haitians did not legitimately fear for their lives in Haiti. Whatever the rationale, the policy is essentially the same. It is as cruel, as appalling and as morally unacceptable now as it was when Clinton was a candidate.

Moreover, both Bush and Clinton argued unconvincingly that the fleeing Haitians are economic refugees, and therefore unworthy of political asylum. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to distinguish between the two in a country where people are routinely punished for real or suspected political sympathies. Since a military coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991, Amnesty International has documented thousands of beatings, detentions, tortures, "disappearances" and deaths in Haiti.

Although the United Nations deployed human rights observers to Haiti shortly after Clinton's inauguration (and partially at his insistence), the Haitian military has continued to punish political dissent, and applications for political asylum have increased dramatically.

The real difference between the Bush and Clinton policies lies in Clinton's promise that the blockade will be temporary. In order to make palatable a policy he had earlier denounced. Clinton has pledged to increase efforts to restore a democratic government to Haiti, and to quicken the processing of asylum applications. But so far, he has done neither effectively, and the policy of returning Haitians to a dismal and dangerous nation damages his credibility as a humanitarian foreign policymaker.

The best and most just way to discourage dangerous emigration from Haiti is to promote political stability and safety there. To this end, Clinton needs to demonstrate his concrete commitment to democracy in Haiti by supporting the legitimately elected government of Aristide. Clinton should ensure that Aristide has access to the funds he needs to maintain his exiled government. Since the end of the year, the State Department blocked the release of Haitian government funds from U.S. banks, citing bureaucratic holdups.

Additionally, Clinton needs to hasten the process of considering requests for political asylum. Despite his promises, reports indicate that these applications are not being processed any more quickly than before.

To his credit, Clinton increased the number of officials responsible for asylum applications in Port-au-Prince last week and authorized $5 million to establish processing activities in more remote areas, are encouraging. But the asylum officials' task remains formidable; recently, applications have been arriving at a rate of nearly 100 a day.

It would be tragic if Clinton pursued an immigration policy that inadvertently resulted in hundreds or thousands of deaths at sea. But it is reprehensible to illegally return refugees to probable persecution in Haiti, and it is hypocritical to ask the Supreme Court to ratify a policy that Clin-